RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J. ( 1 ) THE present appeal has been preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh through the learned Public Prosecutor, aggrieved by the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in sessions Case No. 24 of 1996. The accused were facing in all five charges. The first charge against Al was under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The second charge against A1 to A10 was under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The third charge against A1 to A10 was under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The fourth charge against A2 to A10 was under Sections 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The fifth charge against A1 to A10 was under Section 341 of the Indian Penal code. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story can be briefly narrated as follows: a2 happened to be the son of A1. Kolla bheemarao and the father of A3 were brothers. A3 to A10 are the followers of al. Admittedly there were cases and counter-cases between the party of the accused and Bheemarao from 1982 to 1989. ( 3 ) ON 3-11-1995 when Bheemarao was going to his house through Reddika street along with PW1 and four others and when they reached Jagadhatti temple, the accused alleged to have attacked bheemarao. ( 4 ) IT is further stated by the prosecution that A1 and others caught hold of Bheemarao, threw him down facing the sky. Then A1 alleged to have stabbed him with a spear in his abdomen and on hearing the cries of PW1 and others, A1 removed the spear and all the accused ran away from the spot. ( 5 ) IT is the further case of the prosecution that as per the direction of bheemarao, PW1 went to the house of the injured, informed about the incident to the son of the Bheemarao named Kola Vasudeva rao. Immediately Vasudeva Rao and others came to the spot. Then Bheemarao informed his son about the accused stabbing him. Thereafter Bheemarao was taken to a private hospital and from there to the Government hospital at Tekkali. While the treatment was going on, Bheemarao succumbed to the injuries. Basing upon the medical intimation, ex. P7, and the report, Ex. P6, preferred by Vasudeva Rao and handed over to the police, a case was registered. Thereafter Bheemarao was taken to a private hospital and from there to the Government hospital at Tekkali. While the treatment was going on, Bheemarao succumbed to the injuries. Basing upon the medical intimation, ex. P7, and the report, Ex. P6, preferred by Vasudeva Rao and handed over to the police, a case was registered. PW15, the circle Inspector of Police, Tekkali took up the investigation. ( 6 ) PW15 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and visited the scene of offence. Inquest was held in the presence of PW9. Inquest report is filed on record at Ex. P5. After inquest was over, pw15 made arrangement to handover the dead body to PW12, the Assistant Civil surgeon, who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Ex. P8 is the post-mortem certificate. The Doctor opined that the deceased died because of internal haemorrhage. ( 7 ) PW15 visited the scene of offence, prepared panchanams of the scene of offence and attached the incriminating articles. Thus on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. ( 8 ) IN order to bring the guilt to the home of the accused, the prosecution led the evidence of PWs. 1 to 15. Certain documents were produced and they were marked as ex. P1 to P12. Certain contradictions were marked as Exs. Dl to D18. ( 9 ) IN order to prove that the deceased died a homicidal death, the prosecution wants to rely upon the evidence of PW15, who was the Investigating Officer and who had conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of pw9. PW9 happened to be the mediator when the inquest Panchanama, Ex. P5 was conducted. ( 10 ) AFTER inquest, the dead body was handed over to PW12. PW12 happened to be working as the Women Assistant Surgeon, government Hospital at Tekkali, who on receipt of requisition conducted autopsy over the dead body and noticed the following external injuries:"1. Cut injury 11/2 x 11/2 x 21/2" size present on the left side of the back of chest wall, bleeding from the wound is present near to the spinal column. 2. Diffused swelling of 8" x 7" present on the left side of the back of the chest wall. (1) injury present in the lower margin of the swelling. 3. Intestines are present on the anterior abdominal wall above the umbilicus. 2. Diffused swelling of 8" x 7" present on the left side of the back of the chest wall. (1) injury present in the lower margin of the swelling. 3. Intestines are present on the anterior abdominal wall above the umbilicus. The momentum of the intestines present on the anterior abdominal wall cut into four places. The intestines are also cut at one place 1" x 1/2" in size. 4. Cut injury of 2" 1/2" x 3" in size present on the anterior abdominal wall 1" above the umbilicus. Intestines are protruding through the injury. " ( 11 ) ON internal examination, she noticed the following internal injuries. "skull: No fracture, Brain, Menings and cerebral vessels normal. Mouth teeth tongue and pharynx are normal. Chest : ribs intact on both sides. Diaphragm normal. Hymen normal. Oesophagus, trachea, Bronchia, Pleural cavities, lungs, Heart, Pericardial sab, large blood vessels are all normal. Abdomen: About two litres of dark clotted blood present in the abdominal cavity. Stomach empty:- small intestines cut on the left side 15" long 3" width. Spleen also cut. It is 7" x 4" in size. Liver, gall bladder normal, kidney and urethras right side normal left side cut into three pieces, diffusion of blood present in the perinea area. Urinary bladder and urethra: about 200 ml. of clear urine present. In the bladder genital organs bilateral hydrocele present. " ( 12 ) SHE opined that the deceased died because of shock and haemorrhage. The post-mortem certificate issued by her is produced on record at Ex. P8. She opined that the injuries mentioned in Ex. P8, post mortem certificate are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the patient. ( 13 ) CONSIDERING the evidence led by the prosecution on the point of homicidal death, we hold that the deceased did die a homicidal death. ( 14 ) AS stated earlier, the accused examined DWs. 1 to 4 in order to establish the fact that A1 was not present at the scene of offence, but he was working in the Office of Animal Husbandry, though it was a sunday. DWs. l to 4 happened to be the colleagues of Al. Naturally they supported the defence version stating that A1 was not present at the scene of offence, but he was present in the office. This is one aspect of the matter. DWs. l to 4 happened to be the colleagues of Al. Naturally they supported the defence version stating that A1 was not present at the scene of offence, but he was present in the office. This is one aspect of the matter. ( 15 ) THE prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 who claimed to be the eye-witnesses to the incident. Out of these witnesses, PW2 did not support the case of the prosecution. Then, we have the evidence of PWs. 1, 3 and 4, who claimed to be the eye-witnesses to the incident. ( 16 ) THE evidence of these witnesses goes to show that on the date of the incident they along with the deceased were all coming together from the house of the deceased via main road, Nellore street and were proceeding to Metta Veedhi and when they reached Jagadhatti temple, the deceased was walking ahead of them by about four feet. The accused came from behind from the side of the temple. A2 to A9 alleged to have surrounded the deceased and caught hold of the his hands and legs and made him lie flat on the ground. A1 alleged to have speared in the stomach of the deceased. On seeing the incident, PWs. 1 to 4 shouted and on hearing their shouts A1 alleged to have taken out the spear from the stomach of the deceased and all the accused have run away. This story of the accused 2 to 9 surrounding the deceased and A1 spearing through the abdomen of the deceased was witnessed by pws. l, 3 and 4. Thus, they claimed to be eye-witnesses to the incident. ( 17 ) THE learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of PWs. l, 3 and 4 mainly on three counts. It was observed by the learned Sessions Judge that admittedly there were two rival groups in the village. Therefore, their version has to be weighed with care and caution. The learned sessions Judge further stated in the judgment that the manner in which the attack was made on the deceased was not believable. It was stated by the learned Sessions judge that though PWs. Therefore, their version has to be weighed with care and caution. The learned sessions Judge further stated in the judgment that the manner in which the attack was made on the deceased was not believable. It was stated by the learned Sessions judge that though PWs. l, 3 and 4 have categorically stated that the deceased was made to lie down on the ground, he was caught hold of by A2 to A9, A1 speared into his stomach, and whereas the medical evidence shows that the abdomen wound is an exit wound. In other words, it means that the manner in which the attack was made on the deceased was not witnessed by PWs. 1, 3 and 4. When they came up with a positive case that the wound on the stomach is an entry wound, the said evidence was negatived by the medical evidence stating that the wound noticed on the stomach was an exit wound which means that A1 must have speared the deceased from the backside. Therefore, the presence of PWs. 1, 3 and 4 at the scene of offence and witnessing the incident was held by the learned Sessions Judge as highly doubtful, ( 18 ) THE learned Sessions Judge further disbelieved the evidence of these three witnesses on the ground that the Investigating officer categorically admitted in his evidence that apart from recording the statements of PWs. l to 4 in the present case, he had also recorded the statements of lws. 17 to 30. The are the persons who stay nearby the scene of offence. ( 19 ) IN their statements they have categorically stated that PWs. l to 4 were not present at the scene of offence, and therefore, their presence at the scene of offence was held by the learned Judge to be doubtful, and therefore, it was held that these witnesses are planted witnesses and they are not the eye-witnesses in the real sense. ( 20 ) FURTHER the evidence of DWs. 1 to 4 was disbelieved by the learned Judge on the ground that DWs. l to 4 were admittedly the colleagues of Al and therefore they are bent upon to support A1 and even if the evidence of DWs. ( 20 ) FURTHER the evidence of DWs. 1 to 4 was disbelieved by the learned Judge on the ground that DWs. l to 4 were admittedly the colleagues of Al and therefore they are bent upon to support A1 and even if the evidence of DWs. 1 to 4 is not believed so as to hold that Al was not at all present at the scene of offence, the fact remains that the prosecution could not prove the presence of Al at the scene of offence as the evidence of the so-called eye-witnesses, PWs. 1, 3 and 4 was held to be doubtful. ( 21 ) UNDER these circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded against the accused-respondents. Hence the appeal filed by the State is dismissed.